I think it's also important to work some of the particular tools inorganic chemists are fond of and that the students really won't encounter in other classes.  At a minimum for me that means XRD (at least single crystal and enough knowledge to analyze a published structure in a paper) and heteronuclear NMR (³¹P in particular).  

I find this a really hard question to answer.  It depends which course I'm teaching.  (We have a required post-genchem inorganic and an optional post-pchem inorganic.)

While I teach other things in addition to this set, I feel that the most important things to teach are bonding (MO), symmetry, periodicity (more in depth than genchem), and coordination chem, qualitative acid base, and the structures of simple solids.  I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out what my students take out of genchem (not much), so at this point in my career, I'm of the opinion that having really solid fundamentals is much more important than exposure.  (Of course, had you asked me this question several years ago I would have answered differently.  My senior inorganic colleague assures me that given a few years, I'll swing back to my old viewpoint.)

I am much less opinionated about a senior level course (mostly because I have the sophomore level course to teach).  My goal in there is to help students use their fundamental knowledge to make a reasonable inorganic argument to explain what's going on.  I'm looking forward to incorporating many of the cool learning objects I see into this course the next time that I teach it.

Again, this is a challenge since I have a single required course to fit these in. I teach all every time except 4 (for various reasons), and I also include sections on spectroscopic techniques involved in inorganic (odd NMRs, molecular absorption, IR, XPS, PES, etc) because I'm a spectroscopist in my other life. Coordination mechanisms and kinetics are also musts for me.